Carlsbad, U.S.A. — The three best professions for job seekers with disabilities are all in the field of health care: Pharmaceutical Sales, Pharmacy Technician and Physician’s Assistant, according to a new report by CareerCast.com.

“Organizations specializing in job placement for the disabled find that healthcare employers offer better access to careers than any other industry,” says Tony Lee, publisher, CareerCast.com. “Many Americans have some kind of disability and a large percentage of them either work in health care today or will find a job in that sector in the future.”

The 2010 U.S. Census estimates that 54 million Americans have a disability, which translates into 10% of the population ages 18 to 64. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment for the disabled is 12.9%, which is significantly higher than the national average and up from a rate of 9.3% at the onset of the recession in 2008. However, healthcare job growth is rising steadily, with the sector expected to increase by 5.6 million jobs within the next eight years, creating many available positions for disabled candidates.

Disabled workers can be a great asset to a company, but only about 20% of Americans with a physical or cognitive disability participate in the traditional workforce today. Discrimination is still a key barrier to employment, and one the most difficult hurdles for disabled job seekers to overcome is perception.

The following is an overview of the best jobs for disabled candidates, according to data gathered for the CareerCast Jobs Rated report.

Pharmaceutical Sales
Median Pay (Wholesale/Manufacturing Sales Representatives): $56,620
Number of Jobs/Outlook: 1,830,000/16% growth

Pharmacy Technician
Median Pay: $28,400
Numbers of Jobs/Outlook for Growth: 334,400/32%

Physician Assistant
Median Pay: $86,410
Number of Jobs/Outlook for Growth 83,600/ 30%

Accountant/Auditor
Median Pay: $61,690
Number of Jobs/Outlook for Growth: 1,216,900/16%

Telecommunications Equipment Specialist
Median Pay: $54,710
Number of Jobs/Outlook for Growth: 194,900/15%

Software Developer
Median Pay: $90,530
Numbers of Jobs/Outlook for Growth: 913,100/ 30%

Market Research
Median Pay: $60,570
Number of Jobs/Outlook for Growth: 282,700/41%

Vocational Counselor
Median Pay: $53,380
Number of Jobs/Outlook: 281,400/19% growth

Medical Technologist
Median Pay: $46,680
Number of Jobs/Outlook: 330,600/13% growth

Management Analyst
Median Pay: $78,160
Number of Jobs/Outlook: 718,800/22% growth

To read CareerCast.com’s full report, visit http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/best-jobs-disabled.

The article CareerCast.com Reports Best Jobs For People With Disabilities appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. – Elsevier, a provider of scientific, technical and medical information products and services, is pleased to announce the launch of Health Care: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation.

“Health Care” provides a vehicle for communicating important advances in the study of cutting edge research on innovation in health care delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, payment, and applied information technology. The United States health care system is undergoing unprecedented reform; “Health Care” builds on examples to demonstrate how change happens in real-world settings, disseminating important ideas that inform and improve clinical practice by publishing innovative, high-quality research, reviews and opinions.

The leadership of the journal comes under three Senior co-Editors-in-Chief, all renowned experts on health care transformation: Arnold Milstein, Professor of Medicine at Stanford and Medical Director of the Pacific Business Group on Health; Richard Shannon, the Frank Wister Professor of Medicine and Chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; and Ashish Jha, C. Boden Gray Associate Professor of Medicine at the Harvard School of Public Health.

“This is a critical time for the U.S. health care system,” said Dr. Jha. “The need for thoughtful, high-quality empirical work to guide us has never been greater. “Health Care” will combine data-driven evaluations of current efforts with insightful commentary from the most innovative thinkers in the U.S.  We aim to make it an important force for fresh ideas on how to improve the healthcare delivery system.”

Founders of the journal and co-Editors-in-Chief are Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, a physician at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital who holds appointments at Harvard Medical School and The Wharton School of theUniversity of Pennsylvania, and Sachin H. Jain, MD, MBA, a physician at the Boston Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, Lecturer in Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School, and Chief Medical Information and Innovation Officer at Merck.

Christine Cassel, the President of the American Board of Internal Medicine and a member of the journal’s editorial board, stated, “Health care delivery systems are advancing at an incredible pace. Physicians and other members of the health care team need help in translating these changes in health care delivery into broader practice. This new launch will provide the community with a high-quality journal in which to publish these advances and drive change.”

“Elsevier is pleased to work with the distinguished leadership of this journal to publish scholarly communication at the nexus of healthcare and technology,” said Ann Gabriel, Publishing Director at Elsevier. “The launch of this journal is very timely given the rapidly evolving landscape of health care delivery in the U.S.”

For more information or to submit an article, go to Health Care: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation.

The article Elsevier Launch New Journal on Health Care Delivery appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Toronto, Canada – Wave Accounting, the disruptive creators of award-winning free small business accounting and payroll software, announced on September 11 the results of its small business opinion poll on the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. Wave polled the U.S.-based portion of the company’s more than 300,000 customers regarding their opinions on the candidates’ potential impact on small business.

Key findings include:

• On the question, “Who is better for small businesses,” 53% of respondents chose Romney/Ryan, 39% chose Obama/Biden.
• Reducing government red tape is the number one issue for Republican voting respondents, with an overwhelming 90% citing this issue as “crucial.”
• Among voters intending to vote Democrat, the most important issue is improving health care options for small businesses (77% called it “crucial.”)
• Size matters: Support for Romney/Ryan grows as company size grows. 47% of companies with 6-9 employees say they are definitely voting Romney/Ryan, vs. 45% among companies with 2-5 employees, and 43% among one-person businesses.
• Support for the GOP ticket is strongest in the South where 57% of businesses favorRomney/Ryan.

“These insights represent the real opinions of real small businesses in America,” said Kirk Simpson, CEO of Wave Accounting.

Recent “small business” surveys have included opinions from companies with hundreds of employees and many millions in revenue. Because Wave specializes in online solutions for real small businesses with 9 employees or less, the company can access key insights from a unique and significant segment of the market.

“This group makes up 95% of businesses in the U.S., yet their voices are badly underrepresented in media and politics,” said Simpson. “Their opinions and needs are interesting, in some cases unexpected, and deserve to be heard.”

The complete Wave Small Business Opinions Report — 2012 U.S. Presidential Election is available at www.waveaccounting.com/election2012.

The article Small Businesses Prefer Romney for the U.S. Elections appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — The U.S. Census Bureau has released 2010 estimates of health insurance coverage for each of the nation’s roughly 3,140 counties. Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE) are the only source for single-year estimates of health insurance coverage status for every county in the nation.

These estimates are available by sex, age groups, race and Hispanic origin (for states only), and income-to-poverty ratios. As in past years, the estimates pertain to those younger than 65 as a whole. However, for the first time, there are estimates of coverage at the county level for those in the 50 to 64 age group.

By 2014, changes to the law will extend certain Medicaid benefits to uninsured people falling into specific income groups, and SAHIE estimates will permit users to track the impact of the law on small counties. The estimates also enable local planners to determine, for instance, the counties in which low-income children are most likely to lack health insurance. The mapping tools available on the SAHIE website can also show regional trends in coverage, displaying for instance, that small counties with a high range of uninsured children are mostly in Texas, Nevada and Montana, and small counties with a low range of uninsured are mostly in the Northeast and Midwest.

The new inclusion of the 50 to 64 age category allows tracking of the insurance status of this population, which is more likely to consume health care compared with younger age groups. Knowing the number of uninsured at this older age group allows planners and health care officials to better prepare for the health care needs of this population.

SAHIE is partially funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and others in the health care field. The CDC uses these statistics in support of its National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, providing free cancer screenings to low-income, uninsured women.

“We use SAHIE data to more effectively gauge the level of need for breast and cervical cancer screening in various geographic jurisdictions across the country,” said Marcus Plescia, director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in Atlanta. “The information provided by SAHIE data is important to us in program planning and management, targeting and resource allocation decisions and evaluation.”

The estimates are based on statistical models combining data from a variety of sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS), Census Bureau population estimates, administrative records (such as aggregated federal tax returns and Medicaid participation records) and 2000 Census statistics.

At present, SAHIE is the only source of health insurance estimates for all counties. There are no county estimates derived from the Current Population Survey. In September, the Census Bureau will release health insurance coverage estimates for counties with a population of 65,000 or more from the 2011 ACS. The following month, similar estimates will be released for counties with a population of 20,000 or more from the 2009-2011 ACS. Starting next year, the five-year estimates from ACS will include statistics on health insurance coverage for all areas, regardless of size.

The article Health Insurance Estimations for Each County Released appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The fight for the screening and cure of cervical cancer continues with the first ladies in Africa. On July 25, 2012, a conference was held in Lusaka, Zambia to address issues of cervical cancer that have been challenging to women. The first ladies of six African countries took on the responsibility to help overcome this problem. Dr. Kaseba Sata, the first lady of Zambia, committed herself to work hard to see that women are informed about cervical cancer care, screening, and treatment. She said if it could be detected early, it would speed up the process of healing.

However, there are still a number of challenges to face before reaching this goal. One of the challenges is dispelling the myth that a person should not get screenings when they are seemingly healthy, as this may cause someone to get the sickness for which they are checking.

Understanding why women should get regular cervical cancer screenings is very important. During the beginning of HIV/AIDS outbreaks, most people never wanted to test for the diseases due to the stigma that is associated with them. According to Ronda from N’gombe Township, the matter of screening for cervical cancer may be just as difficult as that of AIDS, meaning that more sensitization may be required to reach the masses.

The first ladies pledged to provide resources to the people and to help with treatment for those found in the danger zone. However, the challenges are many, as most developing countries are faced with issues, such as sub-par technology to screen and treat cervical cancer and a lack of skilled workers. Other problems include the mobilization of resources due to bad roads to the remote parts of their countries that have bad health care. The few hospitals that can carry out such operations may not have the right equipment or enough skilled workers.

At the moment, sensitization programs are not yet in existence. This means that a well-planned program must be built from scratch. Dr. Kaseba has promised full support and will work with her partners to see that this disease is reduced in Zambia and Africa as a whole. Nevertheless, the sensitization program has not yet begun full swing in Zambia. During the conference, Dr. Kaseba urged women to make use of existing services and said she will do her best to advocate for the resources to eliminate cervical cancer.

However, the cancer hospital in Lusaka and other district hospitals that are fully functioning have a long wait for someone in need of service. This is another possible reason why women may be reluctant to receive treatment. There is a call on men to work hand in hand in sensitizing everyone to understand the need of screening before the problem is big; they are also being urged to be more involved, as this is a sexually transmitted infection (STI), and they can choose to protect their partners.

Calls for more information on the disease and for both parties to take precaution and prevention measures is being considered among  women. Men should be sensitized to stop living a careless life style and concentrate on their families. In fact, men should help protect women from the diseases and to advance a motherly well-being. Africa requires men and women to work together in reducing the spread of cervical cancer.

Image Courtesy of  Embassy of Equatorial Guinea

The article Cervical Cancer Screenings Face Resistance appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Dallas, U.S.A. — The National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics (NAFC) will hold the latest C.A.R.E. (Communities Are Responding Everyday) Clinic for uninsured people in Dallas in September. The free clinic, held in conjunction with the Lone Star Association of Charitable Clinics (LSACC) and the North Texas Association of Charitable Clinics (NTACC), is scheduled for September 29 at the Dallas Convention Center, Hall A, 650 South Griffin St., and will be open for patients from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

“While the political pundits discuss at length the pros and cons of the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, free and charitable clinics remain committed to providing health care to the medically underserved throughout the country,” NAFC Executive Director Nicole Lamoureux said. “With future implementation of the Affordable Care Act and expansion of Medicaid in question in Texas and other states, we recognize that it is critical for the medically underserved to receive access to health care today and in the immediate future.”

Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country with about 26 percent of residents in general and 22 percent of children lacking health insurance. The overall uninsured rate is about the same in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but the situation for children is even worse with 26.4 percent lacking health insurance. Further, among people living in poverty, the rate of being uninsured soars to 46 percent.

“In 2009 the first C.A.R.E. Clinic was held in Houston and now three years later the needs in Texas and in the Dallas area remain incredibly high,” LSACC Executive Director Jody Hopkins said. “Charitable clinics provide health care to many of our state’s residents with little to no state or federal support. Charitable clinics are an important, critical and often overlooked member of the safety net and we look forward to not only providing health care to those who need it, but also shining a light on those clinics who provide care daily in Texas.”

Both medical and nonmedical volunteers are needed from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on the day of the clinic, Sept. 29, as well as for setup on Thursday afternoon, Sept. 27, and all day Friday, Sept. 28.

Medical volunteers needed for the Dallas clinic include doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, emergency medical technicians, medical administrators, licensed clinical social workers and more. Non-medical volunteers are needed to help with documentation, logistical support, patient intake and translation, as well as to be patient greeters and escorts.

Information on the event and how to register is available online at: www.nafcclinics.org/. Information on how to donate to support this and future clinics is also available at that address by clicking on the “Donate Now” button.

This will be the 12th in a series of large C.A.R.E. Clinics held around the country to bring together physicians and other health care professionals, as well as non-medical volunteers, to serve the needs of thousands of people who might otherwise go without medical care and to connect them to local safety-net resources.

Since September 2009, more than 15,000 uninsured patients have received medical care at C.A.R.E. Clinics. The clinics have been held in: Houston; New Orleans (three times); Little Rock; Kansas City; Hartford; Atlanta; Washington, D.C.; Charlotte; and Tacoma, Wash.

“Our C.A.R.E. Clinics have continued to show that volunteerism is alive and well in our nation,” Lamoureux said. “We look forward to working with the Dallas community to provide health care to those who may not have access and to connect the uninsured with safety-net providers such as charitable clinics, sliding-scale clinics and federally qualified health centers near where they live so that patients can receive regular treatment on an ongoing basis.”

Image Courtesy of  spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

The article Free Clinic for Uninsured People is Headed to Dallas appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, released this statement on July 17:

“Last Friday, Judge Richard Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered President Barack Obama to reveal under oath the specifics of his secret meetings with health care lobbyists such as PHARMA, Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that lead up to the passage of “Obamacare,” or else submit to discovery depositions and document production in that my group filed a few years ago.

The judge’s order is courageous, particularly since he was appointed to the federal bench by Democrat President Bill Clinton, showing that some integrity still remains on the federal bench despite the politics of Obamacare and our comprised and partisan judicial system in general.

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare and Congress is considering repealing or amending it, Judge Roberts’ decision is crucial for the American people to know what went on behind closed doors, including any lobbyist commitments to pay campaign contributions to the Obama reelection campaign, in order to fully understand and remedy Obamacare, which many feel will seriously harm the economy if put into effect as is during these times of deep economic crisis.”

Obamacare, which is actually called the Affordable Care Act, was passed by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. It was ruled constitutional not under the Commerce Clause but the taxing powers of Congress. Justice John Roberts, who tends to lean more conservative, seemed to jump to the opposing side in this decision, giving the liberals the majority that they needed to allow the law to pass.

For a copy of Judge Roberts’ decision, go to www.freedomwatchusa.org or Pacer with regard to the case styled Freedom Watch v. Obama et. al, Civil Action No. 09-2398 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia).

Image Courtesy of   michael rubin / Shutterstock.com

The article Obamacare Still in Court in Washington, DC appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When it comes to solving the problems and challenges of a country or organization, few things are more frustrating than policies or programs designed by ideology. This is an ever present problem in politics, and is often the reason bills and laws are several hundred pages long. You need that much room to put in rules that address whatever political or social world view of the politicians crafting the bill. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is no different, and in installment four of Toonaripost’s Series on the law, we will touch on two provisions written into the law that illustrate this phenomenon.

Equal Premiums for Women

In web advertisements and mailers, the Democratic Party refers to this provision as, “being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition.” The reason for this is that under ACA a woman can no longer be charged a higher premium for health insurance than a man of equivalent age. Two people, male and female, in the same city and town, of the same age, will now have the same or equal monthly premiums.

Implications

There are two implications to this provision. The first, as discussed in Parts One, Two, and Three of our series, is that it is just one in a long list of items that create higher premiums. Why would this be? The reason is simple. Insurance companies do not charge higher premiums to women because they dislike women, they charge higher premiums because women have higher overall health care costs.

Insurance of any type is a service meant to provide money or expenses paid for various types of risk. Companies determine through statistics and probability computations what the company’s risk is for paying out a claim are in a given market; auto insurance, life, or in this case, health care expenses. Premiums are not determined in isolation; there is a reason for them.

According to a study by the Health Services Research center, the per capita lifetime expenditure for a female is $361,200, a third higher than males, at $268,700. Two-fifths of this difference owes to women’s longer life expectancy. Another reason is that women give birth.

If you contrast this with auto insurance, then the roles are reversed. Men pay higher premiums, because men have more accidents, get more speeding tickets, and are more aggressive drivers than women. As a result, women pay lower premiums. That is not unfair or discrimination. That is a function of risk and real costs.

Whether a person agrees with the ACA law is not the issue. This series is about the provisions of the law, and its implications apart from political sides. Nonetheless, this is a provision that has a political viewpoint driving the policy. On the political left is a view that everyone should be treated equal in all things and in all areas.

Those on the right would not disagree, but it can be construed that sometimes the policies from the left, substitute the word equal, with the phrase “the same.” Everyone is equal, but not everyone is the same. And sometimes those differences are significant in financial terms. If politicians continue to make laws based on ideology and not reality, there will be more bills and laws that are long, complicated, expensive, and do not fix the problem they were designed for in the first place.

The 80/20 Law

Even though the most publicized area of contention about ACA was the individual mandate, it is not the only mandate in the ACA law. As we discussed in Part Three, there are mandatory coverage items that must be in each insurance plan. There is also a provision called the Medical Loss Ratio. The health care law generally requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of consumers’ premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement. Insurers can spend the remaining 20 percent on administrative costs, such as salaries, sales, and advertising. Noticeably absent from that list is any mention of a profit ratio.

Implications

The 80/20 law is perhaps the most partisan provision within the ACA law. It has nothing to do with costs, and nothing directly related to health care. What it does is reflect a worldview as it relates to health care.

The view for most Left leaning politicians and individuals is that health care and health care insurance is not something you should be making a profit from. It is seen as profiteering off the misery of sick people. Whether that is right or wrong is immaterial to this series, but that is the view. That opinion is now law, because there is effectively a backdoor price fixing mechanism within ACA.

Insurance companies now have a ceiling to which they can achieve a positive return on their operations. Over the long haul this will turn health insurance into another form of public utility. If you do not agree with profit motive being a part of health care, then this may not bother you. If you want lower prices, then you should be alarmed.

Many may think that this is not a big deal, because it will mean the insurance company may make 250 million instead of 500 million, but that is not how it works. What happens is that smaller companies cannot get to the 250 million. It means that the profit margin, about 2.5% per person now, could be cut in half, making it less attractive for new players to enter the market, or smaller ones to remain in it. Take, for instance, Humana healthcare. They started out as nothing but a single nursing home.

A company in similar circumstances today may look at the margins, the regulations, etc., and just not enter the market. Smaller and regional insurers will find it more difficult to complete and will go out of business or be gobbled up by bigger players. In the end, there will only be a few insurers in the market, making for even less competition than is already available on a state by state basis now. That means higher premiums, and often lower quality. That is the effect of price fixing, regardless of the marketplace you are talking about.

In 10 or 20 years the ultimate implication and consequence of this one, single provision could turn the Conservative boogieman of single payer into a reality.

The article Part Four: Affordable Care Act appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. — In a recent interview for Fox News, Martin Smithmyer, CEO of Americord Registry, one of the industry’s leading cord blood banking companies, said, “Although [Americord] does not pay doctors for making referrals, this is a common practice among some of our competitors, including at least 3 of the top 6 cord blood banks.”

The Obama administration, in January 2012, made it clear that under the new health care law it will require certain healthcare companies to disclose payments they make to doctors – sometimes amounting to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars – for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), recommends doctors disclose such payments and arrangements to patients.

Furthermore, according to Smithmyer, cord blood has certain limitations that parents should know about before they decide to bank their child’s cord blood, since the cost of cord blood banking is not an insignificant consideration when making this decision.

“Although in this field the technology is always changing, the number of stem cells in one unit of cord blood today is only sufficient to treat a child up to about 10 years old,” said Smithmyer. Americord Registry is developing a new technology that will collect up to 10 times more stem cells. This would be enough to use therapeutically for an adult. To learn more, read the full article from Fox contributor: 7 things you should know about cord blood banking.

About Americord Registry

Americord Registry is a company involved in umbilical cord blood, cord tissue and placenta stem cell preservation. Americord collects, processes, and stores newborn stem cells for future medical and therapeutic use, including the treatment of more than 80 diseases such as leukemia.

Founded in 2008, Americord is registered with the Food and Drug Administration. The company’s laboratory is accredited by the AABB and complies with all federal and state regulations, including federal CLIA laboratory standards. Americord is based in New York, NY.

The article Cord Blood Bank Gives Kickback to Doctors appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. – As the Supreme Court readies for its ruling on the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” Americans have different opinions on components of the law, depending on the type of health insurance they currently have. Specifically, over half of U.S. adults who have purchased health insurance individually (54%) think employers should not be required to provide employee health insurance compared to only 28% of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance who think this. Additionally, over half of those with individual health insurance (55%) think the government should play a role in assuring access to health insurance, compared to almost two-thirds of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage (64%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,208 U.S. adults (ages 18 and over) surveyed online between June 12 and 14, 2012 by Harris Interactive.

Two thirds of Americans (66%) agree that having health insurance should be a personal choice, so there may be some general disapproval of the ACA’s individual mandate. However, Americans do agree with some of the ACA’s other provisions. For example, over four in five U.S. adults agree that neither children nor adults should be denied health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (83%) and nearly three-quarters of Americans agree that tax credits should be offered to individuals if they purchase their own health insurance (74%).

However, when looking at the data by the type of insurance respondents currently have, some distinct differences can be seen. Interestingly, among those that have individual coverage, almost half (46%) agree that all people do not need to be covered by health insurance, compared to 30% among those with employer-sponsored coverage and 36% among those that have no insurance at all. Those with individual insurance are also slightly less likely to agree (79%) that adults and children with pre-existing coverage should not be denied coverage, compared to those with employer-sponsored plans (86% adults; 85% children) and Medicare (82% adults; 83% children).

When asked to rate how important 11 different aspects of health insurance are, over nine in ten Americans say access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need is important (91%) while nine in ten say coverage for prescriptions (90%) and availability of insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (90%) are important. Those who have employer sponsored health insurance are more likely than those with insurance they have purchased themselves to say each of the 11 aspects is important when it comes to health insurance. Some of the larger differences are seen when looking at coverage for prescriptions (95% vs. 76%), coverage for preventative care (93% vs. 74%), and coverage for wellness programs (84% vs. 65%).

Additionally, when asked which two things are most important when it comes to health insurance, one aspect rises to the top – two in five Americans say one of the two most important aspects is access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need (39%). The next three are financial as about one-quarter of U.S. adults say financial protection from major health crises (27%), lower out of pocket costs (26%), and low premiums (24%) are most important.

“The importance of health insurance to the American consumer cannot be understated regardless of the opinion issued by the Supreme Court,” said Debra Richman, Senior Vice President of Healthcare Business Development & Strategy at Harris Interactive. “This is especially true for consumers who individually purchase health insurance plans, a market of growing significance to health insurers. It will be imperative for health insurers to increase their focus on how those in the individual market ‘consume’ health insurance, including what plan features they prefer, and what they will and conversely will not choose to buy. Financial protection from major health crises, access to providers, convenience, and quality will be key factors as individual health consumers make purchasing decisions, despite how the Supreme Court rules on the individual coverage mandate.”

The article Employers Should Not Provide Healthcare, Americans Say appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Poverty is one of the world’s biggest unsolved issues. Even though the United States is the wealthiest country in the world, it’s  masses still live in poverty every single day. According to the non-profit organization ‘Bread for the World,’ “more than one in five children live in households that struggle to put food on the table, and most Americans (51.4 percent) will live in poverty at some point before age 65.” Of that percentage, a huge chunk comes from broken homes, including single and teenage mothers. This chunk is being blamed for the poor social mobility in the U.S.

According to a survey in the book “From Parents to Children,” written by a group of scholars, “children born into poor homes in America — where single-parent and teen-parent homes are more common (than in other parts of the world)– tended to remain poor throughout their life, while Australian and Canadian children born into similar families were more successful in advancing themselves.”

One of the scholars who wrote the book, Ottawa University’s Miles Corak, a poverty and education expert, said, “the tie between the educational attainment of children and the educational attainment of their parents is much tighter in the UK and U.S. than not just Australia and Canada, but also the vast majority of comparable rich countries.”

Children in the United States that are born into poverty are considered less developed than children entering elementary school in Australia and Canada. By the time these children enter high school, the gap of development continues to widen. Additionally, according to NewsCore, students born into poverty are much less likely to further their education after high school than impoverished students in other industrialized nations.

In hopes of improving the lives of those born into poverty in the United States, there are several things that the public can do to contribute to the lives of those that are most affected. Educational Charity Sutton Trust, which works to address such inequalities, said, “if we can understand the reasons for the much higher levels of social mobility in nations such as Canada and Australia … then the hope is that we can develop policies that will improve the life prospects.”

‘Bread for the World’ outlines several solutions to end poverty and to change the current statistics of poverty in America. Better jobs with higher wages need to be created for adults to support their families, and work support programs need to expand for families to have access to affordable health care and child care.

Strengthening tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which help working families, and child nutrition programs—school lunches and breakfasts, summer feeding programs, and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program—are critical to ending childhood hunger. When children receive the nutrition they need, they are more likely to move out of poverty as adults.

Image Courtesy of  Gerry Boughan / Shutterstock.com

The article Poverty Striking Broken Homes in America appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Chicago, U.S.A. – Medicaid cuts being considered in Springfield would cost thousands of jobs and threaten care at nursing homes across the state, according to nursing home administrators, health care leaders and elected officials who rallied at the Thompson Center in Chicago. The event was organized by the Health Care Council of Illinois (HCCI), which represents more than 500 nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities across the state of Illinois.

“Nursing homes are the 10th largest employer in the state,” Pat Comstock, HCCI Executive Director, told the crowd. “We employ 100,000 workers who pay their taxes and support their families. At a time when 70 cents of every dollar a nursing home spends is for staff wages, these Medicaid cuts could cause thousands of layoffs across Illinois.”

Legislators are considering Governor Quinn’s proposal to slash Medicaid spending by $2.7 billion. The proposed cuts to nursing homes could drastically jeopardize the quality of care for the more than 50,000 people residing in Illinois nursing homes who pay with Medicaid. These cuts put nursing homes at risk for closing, especially some Chicago nursing homes where Medicaid recipients make up more than 90 percent of the resident population.

“We’ve been traveling Illinois for the past few weeks, making 16 stops, calling on lawmakers and Governor Quinn to step up to the plate for nursing home residents,” Comstock continued. She invoked the baseball metaphor in calling upon the General Assembly to support nursing homes.

“The State of Illinois is dead last in the nation for the amount of Medicaid funds the state gives nursing homes. That’s strike one,” Comstock said. “The state is more than $600 million and eight months delinquent in paying most nursing homes. That’s strike two. Illinois must not strike out when it comes to our most frail, vulnerable residents.”

In addition to the multi-city tour and rally, nursing home staff from across Illinois have been visiting Springfield, meeting with legislators and urging them to give nursing home residents top priority for Medicaid funding.

The article Medicaid Cuts in Chicago Irks Nursing Staff appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

According to the CIA, Monaco has the highest life expectancy at almost 90 years old. Countries with a good healthcare system, low rates of violence, and democracy, among other factors, are more likely to have a higher life expectancy. Certain places in Asia, such as Macau, Japan, and Singapore, range between 84 and 83 years.

Asia’s relative advantage is related not only to genetics, but also its universal healthcare system and better diet. The United States, with an average life expectancy of 77.49, ranks fiftieth, which is below middle income countries such as Gibraltar, Denmark, and Portugal. At the bottom of the list is the African country, Chad, with an average life expectancy of 49 years.

Why are Monacans expected to live so much longer than anyone else? Monaco borders the Mediterranean Sea on the southern coast of France, near the border with Italy, and is the second-smallest independent state in the world (after Vatican City). Monaco is home to 30,510 people and became independent in 1419 by the House of Grimaldi. Monaco is a popular resort, attracting tourists to its casinos and pleasant climate.

The state has no income tax and low business taxes and thrives as a tax haven both for individuals who have established residence and for foreign companies that have set up businesses and offices. Living standards are high, roughly comparable to those in prosperous French metropolitan areas. Monacans have access to good water, sanitation, and healthcare, and zero percent of the population has AIDS or HIV.

In contrast, Chad faces many health problems, such as malaria, Hepatitis A, and meningitis. The Chad government estimates that 11,000 people died due to AIDS or HIV in 2009. Currently, 210,000 Chadians are living in the country with AIDS or HIV. Residents of Chad have less access to healthcare than Monacans, mostly because of poverty.

Animals with diseases are another factor of risk for Chadians that sometimes consume poisonous foods due to the lack of regulations. Chad relies on foreign assistance and foreign capital for most public and private sector investment projects. At least 80 percent of Chad’s population relies on subsistence farming and raising livestock for its livelihood.

Transnational issues do not help the life expectancy of Chadians. There is a lot of crime and violence on the cross-border with Cameroon, Sudan, and Nigeria. Moreover, Chadian children are trafficked to Cameroon, the Central African Republic, and Nigeria for forced labor and forced prostitution.

Image Courtesy of   jbor / Shutterstock.com

The article Monaco Has the Highest Life Expectancy in the World appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

An Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) analysis of the March employment report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth improved in February with 227,000 jobs added to nonfarm payrolls. In February women gained 86,000 jobs (almost 40 percent, above their share for the past year) and men gained 141,000. The gap between women’s and men’s employment in February is 1.9 million. IWPR released a new Quick Figures with two new graphics.

The unemployment rates remained largely steady from January to February declining for women aged 16 and older (to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent) and unchanged for men (8.3 percent). Women’s employment growth was aided by strong growth in health care (49,000 jobs added overall) and food service and drinking places (40,800 jobs added overall).

In the last year, from February 2011 to February 2012, of the 2.1 million jobs added to payrolls, 672,000 or 31% were filled by women and 1,462,000 or 69 percent were filled by men. Since October of 2009 when men’s and women’s total jobs numbers were virtually equal, women have gained 648,000 jobs, whereas men have gained 2,544,000.

Since June 2009 when the recession officially ended, men have gained 88 percent (1.9 million) while women have gained only 273,000 (12 percent) of the jobs added to payrolls – primarily because jobs growth for women lagged men’s by nearly a year.

Women have regained nearly one out of three (855,000 or 31.4 percent) of the total jobs they lost in the recession (2.7 million from December 2007 to the trough for women’s employment in September 2010, which occurred more than one year after the recession officially ended). The picture looks somewhat better for men: men have gained 43.4 percent (2.6 million) of the jobs they lost since December 2007 (6.0 million).

In the first quarter of 2009, when President Obama began his term, employment was still falling steeply. With the passage of the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009, job losses abated and turned to job growth in early 2010. In 2011 and 2012 the gains in jobs added are being shared by women and men.

There is still a jobs deficit relative to before the recession, which was the most severe since the 1930s. At the pace of job gains in February (227,000), it would take until late 2016 just to employ those currently looking for work without considering additional workers entering the labor force. As of February 12.8 million workers remain unemployed.

The article Continued Job Growth for Women and Men appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1).  In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.

Claim: ”Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”

Response: This is not entirely true.  To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose.  Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith.

Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great.  More importantly,   the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.

Claim: “No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.  For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.”

Response:  It is true that these rules directly apply to employers and insurers, not providers, but this is beside the point:   The Administration is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral.

Less directly, the classification of these drugs and procedures as basic “preventive services” will increase pressures on doctors, nurses and pharmacists to provide them in order to participate in private health plans – and no current federal conscience law prevents that from happening.

Finally, because the mandate includes abortifacient drugs, it violates one of the “existing conscience protections” (the Weldon amendment) for which the Administration expresses “strong support.”

Claim: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.  Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.   But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

Response: The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false.  Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums.  This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.

Claim: ”Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy:  Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

Response: False.  The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects.[i]  RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.

Claim: “Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions.  Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false.  All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA).

None of these havens is available under the federal mandate.   It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption.  It is broader:  It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion.

Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.

Claim: “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

Response: This is irrelevant, and it is presented in a misleading way. If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so? But this claim also mangles the data to create a false impression.

The study actually says this is true of 98% of “sexually experienced” women.  The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are “sexually active” and “do not want to become pregnant.”  Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage.

The drugs that the mandate’s supporters say will be most advanced by the new rule, because they have the highest co-pays and deductibles now, are powerful but risky injectable and implantable hormonal contraceptives, now used by perhaps 5% of women.  The mandate is intended tochange women’s reproductive behavior, not only reflect it.

Claim: “Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost.  The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”

Response: The government is violating our religious freedom to save money?  If the claim is true it is hard to say there is a need for a mandate: Secular insurers and employers who don’t object will want to purchase the coverage to save money, and those who object can leave it alone.

But this claim also seems to rest on some assumptions: That prescription contraceptives are the only way to avoid “unintended and unhealthy pregnancy,” for example, or that increasing access to contraceptives necessarily produces significant reductions in unintended pregnancies.  The latter assumption has been cast into doubt by numerous studies

Claim: ”The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. And as we move forward, our strong partnerships with religious organizations will continue.”

Response: False.  There is no “balance” in the final HHS rule—one side has prevailed entirely, as the mandate and exemption remain entirely unchanged from August 2011, despite many thousands of comments filed since then indicating intense opposition.  Indeed, the White House Press Secretary declared on January 31, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” so little was placed on that side of the scale.

The Administration’s stance on religious liberty has also been shown in other ways.  Recently it argued before the Supreme Court that religious organizations have no greater right under the First amendment to hire or fire their own ministers than secular organizations have over their leaders – a claim that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court as “extreme” and “untenable.”

The Administration recently denied a human trafficking grant to a Catholic service provider with high objective scores, and gave part of that grant instead to a provider with not just lower, but failing, objective scores, all because the Catholic provider refused in conscience to compromise the same moral and religious beliefs at issue here.

Such action violates not only federal conscience laws, but President Obama’s executive order assuring “faith-based” organizations that they will be able to serve the public in federal programs without compromising their faith.

The article White House Misrepresents its Own Contraceptive Mandate appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Health care was a major issue at the November 9 Republican presidential debate hosted by CNBC titled, “Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate.” With each Republican presidential candidate stating that they would repeal ObamaCare, the debate gave them the opportunity to address the steps to reform health care once elected to office.

Ron Paul, who has had previous experience in the medical field as a doctor, addressed the issue by stating that the solution to heath care was to get the government out of the business altogether. He stated that there should be the right to “opt out of ObamaCare,” as well as any health care program to bring health care back to patient-doctor relationships.

Paul also discussed the need for patients to have medical savings accounts, which would drive down the prices on major medicines. Rick Perry believes that Medicare should allow more options for people to choose from. He also said that the best solution was to send money to the states and have them decide on what program fits best for their state.

Mitt Romney, who is currently taking the lead in recent polls, has received criticism in the past on his stance on health care. His plan is often referred to as “RomneyCare” because of its similarities with ObamaCare. During the debates, he responded that he would appeal ObamaCare and the solution would also be to send money to the states and allow them decide which health care plans are best for their state.

Romney also stated that Americans should be allowed to purchase their own insurance, instead of being forced to receive it through their company. He also agreed with Paul, saying that health care should work like a market so that Americans have a stake in the quality of their insurance. Michele Bachmann also held the same stance. She also maintained her true “malpractice liability reform” stance.

Newt Gingrich stated that there was a need to restore patient-doctor relationships, as well as turn over the funds to the state level so that they can craft a plan, similar to what John Huntsman indicated. Gingrich then stated that there has to be more concentration and funding for research on brain science.

By finding cures for many leading diseases and illnesses, people wouldn’t have to pay for such federal programs. Senator Rick Santorum thought that many other candidates lacked his experience in the health care field, and that other candidates such as Romney were not consistent in their plans.

He stated, “I was always for having the government out of the health care business and for a bottom-up, consumer-driven health care, which is different than Governor Romney and some of the other people on this panel.” Though each candidate has different plans for repealing ObamaCare, health care will continue be a hotly debated topic in future debates.

The article GOP’s Alternative Solutions to Healthcare appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The debate that took place at the infamous Ronald Reagan Library gave those who tuned in the opportunity to formally see where the eight GOP presidential candidates stand on some of the most burning issues facing the country. It was clear that two candidates carried the spotlight throughout the night. Romney and Perry didn’t waste any time and began their heated battle right from the start.

Each dealt with tough questions, and both were confronted on issues of job creation in their state and their plan for the economy. Romney, who was bumped down by Perry in recent polls to a second place, showed an adequate performance at last week’s debate. Romney was able to stay composed and focused even when faced with questions regarding some of his weak spots, such as healthcare.

Romney’s health care plan, often referred to as “Romney Care,” was one topic that Romney couldn’t avoid answering — the main reason being that all other candidates oppose Romney’s healthcare bill because it resembles that of President Obama. He will have to expand on the difference between his and the President’s in future debates.

Romney was also confronted with his ideas for job creation when questioned about his poor ranking as the 47^th state for job creation within his ten years as governor. Romney responded, “We were able to turn around the job losses and at the end of four years we had the unemployment rate down to 4.7%. That’s a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in this entire country.”

He also used his experience in the private sector to promote his foundation for forming jobs. Rick Perry, who is now in the lead in the GOP presidential election, is known to be inexperienced in live debates compared to the other candidates. However, this didn’t show and Perry was able to answer many questions, with only a few fumbles.

Perry was also faced with the topic of job creation and economy. He was asked about economic issues that surround Texas such as having the lowest minimum wage in the country and being one of eight states with the highest level of poverty.

Perry responded, “What Americans are looking for is someone who can get this country working again, and we put the model in place in the state of Texas. When you look at what we have done over the last decade we have created one million jobs in the state of Texas, the same time Americans lost 2 1/2 million.”

Although a good answer, Perry dodged many of the questions being asked and instead responded with his track record of creating jobs. The fact that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were in the spotlight last at the first debate could indicate the direction of the race for the presidential nomination.

Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to President George W. Bush during his presidential campaign, responded to last week’s debate as, “great theater, good fireworks. Rick Perry is the front-runner and he did nothing last night to knock himself off that status. Mitt Romney was solid as he has been in the recent debates.”

With both candidates showing no signs of giving up, it will be exciting to see if the upcoming debates continue to play out like a boxing match between Romney and Perry, or if other candidates will want to step in for the fight.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Romney and Perry Battle for the Lead appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

According to a study published by the National Institutes of Health conducted by doctors at the University of Michigan, one in two women of childbearing age in the United States is considered overweight or obese.

Weight-related complications during pregnancy are commonplace and healthcare providers are trying to dismiss the idea that pregnant women need to “eat for two” by doubling their caloric intake. Working with a healthcare provider, overweight women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant can find a strategy to a healthy weight gain that works for them.

Increased risk of developing gestational diabetes is a crucial reason for overweight women to closely monitor how much weight they gain during pregnancy. Gestation diabetes causes the hormones released from the placenta, the baby’s support system, to be blocked by the woman’s body.

The result is that her body is unable to process insulin. High blood glucose levels build in the mother’s system and stream to the baby through the placenta causing the baby to grow rapidly and gain unnecessary weight.

Overweight pregnant women are also at risk of developing high blood pressure. This condition tightens the blood vessels in the uterus that supplies the baby with oxygen and nutrients. It also puts the mother at risk for having a heart attack or stroke resulting in a greater likelihood that she will deliver her baby early.

Having regular checkups before becoming pregnant may help prevent obesity related complication during pregnancy. The March of Dimes recommends, “If you’re overweight or obese, your health care provider or a registered dietitian can help you lose pounds so that you reach a healthier weight before trying to get pregnant. They will talk with you about exercise and eating healthy.”

What is the correct amount of weight gain? The amount a woman’s health care provider recommends will depend on her pre-pregnancy weight. If she has a normal weight and a body mass index (BMI) in the normal range (between 18.5 and 25) then she should gain between 25 and 35 pounds.

Underweight women, with a BMI less than 18.5, should try to gain between 28 to 40 pounds. Overweight women, with a BMI between 25 and 29.9, should gain between 15 to 25 pounds and obese women, those with a BMI greater than 30, should limit their weight gain to between 11 and 20 pounds.

Women who are overweight or obese should not intentionally try to lose weight while they are pregnant however it is not uncommon for plus-sized women to lose weight while pregnant without dieting. Morning sickness can contribute to weight loss because its diminished affect on appetite and associated vomiting can cause a loss of calories.

Even so, a developing baby will still get nourishment if a mother is not dieting because overweight women have an extra reserve of calories stored in fat.

Healthy eating should be a goal of every pregnant woman, regardless of her pre-pregnancy weight. Setting a goal for how much weigh to gain with a health care provider is the key to ensuring a successful, healthy pregnancy.

The article The Complications of Being Overweight and Eating for Two appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s campaign is barely one week old, but has already seen its share of problems.  He used his book, “FED UP!” to answer a question at a campaign stop on day 2 of his new presidential campaign. However, the book with its radical ideas has plagued the presidential candidate on the campaign trail.

So, now his spokesman states the book is not a look forward to the future, but rather a description of the past. That is some interesting twisting.Last weekend, Perry did some more twisting at a campaign event in South Carolina comparing the Republicans struggle to lower taxes with the civil rights movement. Sigh.

“Listen, America’s gone a long way from the standpoint of civil rights and thank God we have,” Perry said. “We’ve gone from a country that made great strides in issues of civil rights, I think we all can be proud of that.

And as we go forward, America needs to be about freedom. It needs to be about freedom from overtaxation, freedom from over-litigation, freedom from over-regulation.

And Americans, regardless of what their cultural or ethnic background is, they need to know that they can come to America and you got a chance to have any dream come true because the economic climate is gonna be improved.”

Heading back to Texas for the first time since declaring his candidacy for president of the United States, Perry reportedly encouraged Texans to push back against criticism of the Lone Star State. According to the Associated Press, Perry said, “When the liberal pundits start trashing Texas … I want you all to stand up and say that dog won’t hunt.”

Meanwhile the Governor Rick Perry is sort of doing his governor type job by blocking Obamacare from being implemented in his state, a state with the highest percentage of uninsured residents. Now, there is a governor for you! Although Perry has stated that he supports a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, he is less clear about what alternatives he would support.

Texas has received various grants under Obama’s health care law to implement the health plan. But, when Republican state Rep. John Zerwas tried to move legislation to set up an insurance pool required by the national overhaul, Perry threatened to veto the legislation.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Hello Rick Perry- Meet Rick Perry appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Department of Health and Human Service issued a nearly unanimous recommendation about birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act last week. The panel stated that birth control should be covered 100 percent by insurers to an outcry of opposition from different facets. Some groups condemn the guidelines because it might include the controversial morning after pill.

The Catholics for Choice organization opposes the fact that the guidelines exempt certain religious organizations from having to cover birth control. Some companies worry that the expanded coverage will equal more expensive insurance policies.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) expressed his own outrage of the plan on Monday.  He stated that offering free birth control could mean the end of the entire species.  Speaking on the House floor, King stated:

We have people that are single, we have people that are past reproductive age, we have priests that are celibate. All of them, paying insurance premiums that cover contraceptives so that somebody else doesn’t have to pay the full fare of that? And they’ve called it Preventative medicine.

Well if you applied that preventative medicine universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization.

King also called the new guidelines “bizarre” and “Orwellian.”

“Now none of us would have health to worry about if they prevented us,” he said, “would we, Mr. Speaker?”

That is what insurance is though. We all pay for other people’s treatment.  By King’s logic, I shouldn’t have to pay for overweight smokers with heart disease either. We really need some sort of intelligence test before an elected official can be sworn in. And a far more pressing problem to humanity is global warming which King and his GOP colleagues ignore every chance they get.

The new guidelines were recommended by the panel of experts at the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine. The guidelines will ensure that all health insurance companies fully cover a range of preventative health services for women, including contraceptives, cancer screenings, breast-feeding supplies and HIV testing.

A recent poll states that 77 percent of American voters believe that insurers should cover the cost of contraceptives without co-pays.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.facebook.com/SteveKingIA

The article Rep. King Worries Free Birth Control Could Kill Humans appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The NBC “Parks and Recreation” star Amy Poehler has proudly endorsed Planned Parenthood on Monday. Amy Poehler wrote a fundraising email for the non-profit organization is featured on the Planned Parenthood homepage. Poehler is defending the woman’s health care center from Republican attacks. Four states have passed legislation to de-fund the organization.

“You know who is awesome? Cecile Richards. She’s the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,” Poehler says. “Every single doctor and nurse and receptionist and volunteer who shows up at a Planned Parenthood health center to make sure that every person who walks through their door gets the care they need,” Amy wrote in her email.

“Think about your friends, or your sister, or your daughter, son, niece, or nephew. Think about every person out there who has nowhere else to go, nobody else to count on, nobody but Planned Parenthood,” writes Poehler to supporters of the organization. “It’s up to us to make sure Planned Parenthood is strong enough to protect their rights and their health. Especially because we are having a moment right now when people are trying to come up with new ways to make the lives of all the folks who rely on Planned Parenthood pretty difficult.”She concludes her letter by asking readers to join her in “saying that Planned Parenthood is awesome.”

Meanwhile, red states across the country are viciously attacking Planned Parenthood, falsely claiming that the non-profit somehow profits off of providing abortions. In Indiana, a judge sided with Planned Parenthood last week and ordered an injunction preventing the law that would have block Planned Parenthood from accepting Medicaid in the state from taking effect. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services already denounced the defunding law in a letter issued earlier this month because the proposed change violates federal Medicaid rules by denying Medicaid patients the freedom to choose a qualified provider. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt stated that the federal government’s statement was a factor in her decision.

“Denying the injunction could pit the federal government against the State of Indiana in a high-stakes political impasse,” she told the court. “And if dogma trumps pragmatism and neither side budges, Indiana’s most vulnerable citizens could end up paying the price as the collateral damage of a partisan battle. With this backdrop in mind, along with the reasons discussed above, the Court believes the most prudent course of action is to enjoin the defunding provision while the judicial process runs its course.”

As a result of the injunction, PPIN will immediately resume serving its Medicaid patients, many of whom had been using it as their primary health provider.  “This decision will have immediate, positive consequences for our patients and our organization,” Planned Parenthood of Indiana President and CEO Betty Cockrum said in a statement. “This ruling allows us to resume providing Pap tests, breast exams, STD testing and treatment and birth control to both existing and new Medicaid patients.”

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/rubenstein_/

The article Amy Poehler Supports Planned Parenthood appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

During the governors’ annual visit to the White House last month, President Obama addressed the health care reform law.  Since the law was passed over a year ago, many GOP Governors and other lawmakers have incessantly complained about the reform.  Some Republican governors are refusing to implement the new law.  Obama issued a challenge to these complainers at their visit to the White House.  Obama called the GOP’s bluff.  It is easy to criticize.  It is much more difficult to offer another solution.  And that, in essence, is what Obama has told the Republicans.  Any states can offer their own health care solution.  As long as the plan covers at least as many as The Affordable Care Act, is the same cost to consumers, and does not increase the federal deficit—have at it.

Over a month later, the only states that have taken up on Obama’s challenge are Democrat-led states.  Oregon and Vermont.  Vermont is where extraordinary things are happening.  Not only does that state get Bernie Sanders as a representative, but now they may have a single payer health care.  That is right, single payer.  Do not tell Glenn Beck.

Vermont has actually been working on this plan for quite some time.  Last year, lawmakers in the state passed a bill to hire a team of consultants, including Harvard School of Public Health Professor William Hsiao,  to design a new healthcare system for the Green Mountain State.  The team recommended a single-payer system that would ensure coverage for all residents. An independent public body would oversee the system and contract out administration of all claims. Private insurers could compete for this work, as they have done for years to administer the state’s Medicare program. The bill, currently in committee, would take an estimated three to six years to implement.

Just months into Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin‘s first term in office, the single payer healthcare bill has already passed the state House and is waiting on a vote from the State Senate.  Shumlin supported a single-payer healthcare system during his campaign, calling Vermont’s current system “broken.”

Dr. Deborah Richter, president of Vermont for Single Payer, which has advocated for a new health system since 2003, says that “on the whole” the group supports Hsiao’s plan. “Estimates are that [Hsiao's system] will not only be able to cover everybody, but for less money,” Richter says. “Vermont is uniquely poised to get this done.”

The article Vermont Seeks Single Payer Health Insurance appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.